alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### General Motors Acceptance Corp., Appellant, *v.*Crawford, d. b. a. Montgomery Auto Sales, Appellee; First Discount Corp., Cross-Appellee.

(No. 27579

Decided June 7, 1939.)

*Messrs. Power & Barton*and *Messrs. Hightower & O’Brien,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Benvanger & Doyle,*for appellee.

*Mr. Donald Calhoun,*for cross-appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right he, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable-constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day; Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.

Williams, J., not participating.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 167 

To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the design, renovation, 

construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in 

any location in the United States unless the President transmits to 

Congress a certification that the United Nations has adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting and procurement. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2011 

Mr. STEARNS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To provide that no Federal funds may be used for the 

design, renovation, construction, or rental of any headquarters for the United Nations in any location in the 

United States unless the President transmits to Congress 

a certification that the United Nations has adopted internationally recognized best practices in contracting and 

procurement. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 167 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR THE 

2 DESIGN, RENOVATION, CONSTRUCTION, OR 

3 RENTAL OF ANY HEADQUARTERS FOR THE 

4 UNITED NATIONS IN ANY LOCATION IN THE 

5 UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds may be used 

7 for the design, renovation, construction, or rental of any 

8 headquarters for the United Nations in any location in 

9 the United States. 

10 (b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) shall cease to be ef11 fective if the President transmits to Congress a certifi12 cation that the United Nations has adopted internationally 

13 recognized best practices in contracting and procurement. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   Exhibit 10.26

                        DESCRIPTION OF ARRANGEMENT WITH
                         SOMERSET CENTRAL CORPORATION

T. Jerome Madison is Vice-President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and a 
director of the Company. Mr. Madison's services are provided to the Company 
under an agreement between the Company and Somerset Central Corporation, a New 
Jersey corporation of which Mr. Madison is the sole stockholder and an officer 
and director. The arrangement calls for monthly payments of $13,750 plus 
expenses. For the year ended December 31, 1995, the Company recorded 
approximately $208,000 for services rendered and expenses reimbursed under the 
arrangement. The amount paid in respect of 1995 includes a one-time, $31,000 
special fee earned for effecting certain specified events.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT*

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                  NAME                                      STATE OF INCORPORATION
                  ----                                      ----------------------
<S>                                                         <C>
Subsidiaries Incorporated in the United States:

     C/P Products Corp.....................................    Indiana

     United Sales and Warehouse of Texas, Inc. ............    Texas

Foreign Subsidiaries:

     The Coast Distribution System (Canada) Inc............     Quebec, Canada
</TABLE>

----------

*        In accordance with the descriptions set forth in Paragraph (b) of Item
         601 of Regulation S-K, there have been omitted those subsidiaries that,
         if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
         constitute a significant subsidiary as of December 31, 1998.
Exhibit 32.1



THE COAST DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, INC.



Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2004



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



The undersigned, who is the Chief Executive Officer of The Coast Distribution
System, Inc. (the Company), hereby certifies that: (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Annual Report), to which
this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 30, 2005



/s/    THOMAS R. MCGUIREThomas R. McGuire,Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the annual report of Communication  Intelligence  Corporation
(the  "Company") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Francis V. Dane, Principal Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes  Oxley Act of 2002,
that to the best of my knowledge:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:   March 28, 2004

By: /s/ Francis V. Dane
        Principal Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1

The Coast Distribution System, Inc.

Annual Report on Form 10-K

for the Year ended December 31, 2008,

as Amended on Form 10-K/A

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies that (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K, of
The Coast Distribution System, Inc. (the Company), for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008, as filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission and as amended by this Amendment on Form 10-K/A (the Annual
Report), to which this Certification is an Exhibit, fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and (ii) the information contained in this Annual Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: April 30, 2009

/s/ JAMES MUSBBACHJames MusbachPresident and Chief Executive OfficerA signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to The Coast Distribution System, Inc. and will be retained by The Coast Distribution System, Inc.
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Dragonette, Appellant, *v.*Brandes et al., Appellees. 

(No. 27353

Decided March 29, 1939.)

*Mr. Paul Mancino,*for appellant.

*Mr. Harvey E. Elliott,*for appellees.

By the Court.

Mrs. Brandes had stepped out of a store, carrying a basket with her left hand and holding with her right hand a leash fastened to a harness upon her dog which she was leading.

At the conclusion of a dog altercation on the oppo*224site- side of the street, the dog owned by the son of the plaintiff came across the street, attacked the Brandes dog and forced him down. Mrs. Brandes dropped her basket, caught the harness of her dog, pulled him close to her body and off his front feet. The plaintiff set down the package he was carrying and went to help Mrs. Brandes by grabbing or attempting to grab his son’s dog by the collar. The testimony is not clear as to exactly when the plaintiff lost a portion of his thumb, but there is no conflict as to whose dog did the damage.

Section 5838, General Code, reads in part: “A dog that chases, worries, injures or kills a sheep, * * * or person, can be killed at any time or place; * * *. The owner or harborer of such dog shall be liable to a person damaged for the injury done.”

That section imposes an absolute liability upon the owner of a dog, and *scienter,*fault, negligence or contributory negligence are not involved in a proceeding thereunder. *Kleybolte*v. *Buffon,*89 Ohio St., 61, 105 N. E., 192; *Silverglade*v. *Von Rohr,*107 Ohio St., 75, 140 N. E., 669; *Lisk, Admr.,*v. *Hora,*109 Ohio St., 519, 143 N. E., 545.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the judgment of the Municipal Court is affirmed.

*Judgment reversed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.52

                                                                        10-28-98

To:  Bob Klose

Subject:  Employment Opportunity

Dear Bob,

     ADC offers you the position of Chief Operating Officer at ADC commencing on
November 9, 1998 or a date to be defined as close to this as practicable to
terminating your current position.

     You will be responsible for all production operations, plant and facilities
maintenance, product and process quality control, and implementation of tasks
outlined on the attached sheet.

     Compensation will be a base of $6,500 per month ($78,000 annual) with a
bonus package to reach an annual basis of $100,000 over the first 12 months of
employment upon completion of the designated tasks outlined on the attached
sheets.  Bonuses will be paid when appropriate tasks have been completed.

     You will receive a 250,000 share stock option @ $1.00 per share, vesting
over 5 years at 20% per year.

     Vacation time will accrue as earned and you will be able to schedule
vacations during 1999 to accomodate your personal plans as long as the schedule
fits with ADC's needs.  The use of reasonable judgement on both parties is in
effect here.

     ADC will accrue your salary for the balance of calendar 1998 and will pay
the accrued balance in January, 1999.

     Bob, ADC looks forward to your re-joining our ranks and I know that you
will  be a positive addition to our management team.

                                       Sincerely,

                                       /s/ Pat Kane
<PAGE>

1.  Various projects to be designed, installed & completed between 11/1/98 -
    10/31/99.

    A.  A PC based computer system w/ network to set up acctg. job costing,
        machine scheduling, data collection, plant security, et al. to
        accomplish an audit from an established general ledger system. (1) ADC
        expects to utilize professional assistance from Gary Fox (CPA) or
        accountants as needed.

    B.  Staff, train & direct a 7 x 24 production crew to produce CD's, DVD's,
        CD-R (printing), diskettes and related fulfillment activities. Machine
        maintenance & GC are your responsibility as well as plant maintenance.

    C.  Review and participate in equipment selection for fulfillment & date
        processing.

    D.  Interact with customers on inventory control of customer owned/provided
        materials as well as quality issues and scheduling.

    E.  Responsible for plant layout to accomodate growth.

    F.  Plan & implement a screen making facility @ ADC when required.
EXHIBIT
      23.2








CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
      33-87656 and 33-95226 on Form S-8 of Kent International Holdings, Inc. (formerly
      Cortech, Inc.) of our report dated March 9, 2006 relating to the 2005 financial
      statements which appear in this Form 10-KSB of Kent International Holdings,
      Inc.








/s/
      Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P.C.


Edison,
      New Jersey


March
      29,
      2007
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

 

In connection with theaccompanying quarterly report of Whittier Energy Corporation (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005, (the “Report”), I,Michael B. Young, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify thatto my knowledge:

 

(3)                                  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

 

(4)                                  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  August 15, 2005 | */s/ Michael B. Young*   | * * |
|-----------------------------|--------------------------|----------|
|                        | Michael  B. Young        |
|                        | Chief  Financial Officer |

 

----
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE
F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

Appellate case number: 01

- 17

- 00626

- CV

Trial court case number: 17

- DCV

- 238872

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellants Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal and cancel the oral argument scheduled fo r February 13, 2019 because the same issues raised in this appeal were argued before the Texas Supreme Court

in November 2018 in Garcia v. City of Willis , No. 17

- 0713. The appellants’ attorney has certified that he conferred with counsel for the appellees, who did not oppose the motion or the relief requested.

The submission on oral argument scheduled for February 13, 2019 is cancelled , and this appeal is withdrawn from the submission docket . This appeal is abated , treated as a closed case,

and removed fro m this Court’s active docket.

The parties are ordered to notify this Court by letter within 14 days of the date the Supreme Court of Texas issues a decision in Garcia v. City of Willis , No. 17

- 0713.

The Court will consider an appropriate motion to rein state the proceeding filed by any

party.

It is so ORDERED

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Peter Kelly

________  Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.

Date: __ January 30, 2019

____
#### J. W. DORAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28124.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 7, 1956.

No attorney on appeal for ‘ appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*667PER CURIAM.

.The offense is aggravated assault,; the, punishment, fine of $25.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review. The judgment is.affirmed. ...
#### N. P. WELLS, Appellant, v. FROST BROS., Inc., Appellee.

No. 13038.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 21, 1956.

Albert M. McNeel, Jr., San Antonio, for appellant.

Eskridge, Groce & Hebdon, San Antonio, for appellee.

NORVELL, Justice.

This is a suit by N. P. Wells against Frost Bros., Inc., predicated upon a charge of negligence in shipping a Russian Sable Scarf from San Antonio, Texas, to New York, N. Y. Trial was upon an agreed statement and judgment rendered that Wells take nothing.

The judgment will be affirmed. In November of 1951, appellant telephoned Frost Bros., Inc., and requested that the fur scarf be forwarded to his wife at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York. He gave no instructions as to how the scarf should be sent, nor did he direct that it be insured. Frost Bros., Inc., was holding the scarf for safe-keeping as a bailee, and in the contract of bailment the value placed thereon was $100. It seems that Frost Bros., Inc., had appraised the scarf for insurance purposes some months prior to this time and the parties upon the trial agreed that the value thereof was $1,700. In forwarding the scarf to Mrs. Wells, Frost Bros., Inc., made use of the parcel post department of the United States Post Office, and insured the scarf for the nominal sum of $50, for the purpose of securing better handling. Frost Bros., Inc., supposed that the scarf was covered by insurance and that it would *959therefore be unnecessary to insure it again with the postal authorities.

The scarf was lost in the mails and never delivered. Mrs. Wells received a settlement of $1,654 from the Globe and Rutger’s Insurance Company, and it is inferable that the insurance company is the real party at interest in the prosecution of this claim. However that may be, the company is not a party to this suit and its claim could be no better than that of N. P. Wells, the nominal plaintiff in the suit.

Frost Bros., Inc., ivas acting as agent for Wells in sending the scarf to New York at his request. As Wells gave no instructions, as to insurance, Frost Bros., Inc., could not be held liable for a failure to insure the' scarf for its true value, as it had violated no legal or contractual *duty*which it owed to him. There was no basis for liability;, the judgment of the trial court is correct and is accordingly affirmed. Whitehouse Bros. v. S. H. Abbott & Son, Tex.Civ.App., 228 S.W.2d 599; R. C. Read & Co. v Barnes, Tex.Civ.App., 252 S.W. 224; Kassvan v. Thomas E. McElroy Co., 7 Cir., 179 F.2d 97, 16 A.L.R.2d 860.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                             902
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,823
<ALLOWANCES>                                       462
<INVENTORY>                                     33,210
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                78,949
<PP&E>                                          38,237
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 171,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           47,853
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,367
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,365
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   171,726
<SALES>                                        231,011
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               231,011
<CGS>                                          150,929
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  241,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (178)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,096
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,452)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,485
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (30,937)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (30,937)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (4.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (4.75)
        

</TABLE>
#### Wilbert Earl BURNS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27890.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1955.

No appearance for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for the felony offense of driving while intoxicated as defined by Art. 802b, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.; the punishment, one year in the penitentiary.

The alleged prior conviction was properly shown.

It is undisputed that the appellant was driving an automobile upon a public highway at the time and place alleged.

Two officers testified that they saw the appellant immediately after he had stopped his automobile, observed -him walk and heard him talk, smelled the odor of alcohol on his breath, and expressed the opinion that he was then intoxicated.

Robert S. Crawford; chemist and toxicologist, Texas Department of Public Safety, testified that the specimen of appellant’s blood, which had been obtained with appellant’s consent and which was properly identified, contained an alcoholic concentration of .27 per cent by weight. He further expressed the opinion that any person having such a concentration of alcohol in his blood would be intoxicated.

Appellant testified in his .own behalf stating that he drank some whiskey the previous night and had drunk two beers several hours before his arrest, but that he was not intoxicated.

There are no bills of exception and no exception to the court’s charge.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of appellant’s intoxication against him, and we find the evidence sufficient to support their verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court..